Bruce Wayne casting call for Gotham TV series

Earlier in the week it was suggested that Fox's planned Gotham TV series would get underway with Detective Jim Gordon investigating the murder of Bruce Wayne's parents, and now a casting call has emerged via Feature Film Casting seeking an actor to play for a 10-year-old Bruce, which seemingly confirms the report....

"A 10-year-old Bruce Wayne is among the roles that are now being cast as series regulars on the upcoming Fox TV series "Gotham" which explores the origin stories of Commissioner James Gordon and the villains that made Gotham City famous. Shooting on the pilot episode will get underway in March, 2014 and will center on Gotham City PD rookie homicide detective James Gordon who investigates the double murder of Thomas and Martha Wayne."

Are you excited about this storyline for Gotham? Let us know in the comments below...

Q&A: James Wan, director of The Conjuring

With the UK home entertainment release of The Conjuring set for Monday (December 2nd), director James Wan (Saw, Insidious) talks horror movies...

So, James, congratulations. You get people to sit on the edge of the seat without using gore or the stereotypical horror movie techniques. How did you accomplish that?

JAMES WAN: I accomplished that by thinking, looking to the back of my brain and going, what would I do if I saw that happening? How scared would I be? For a lot of my scare screens, I always just use myself as a gauge. I think that if I find something scary, then I'd like to think and hope that other people would feel the same way as well.

What drove you into directing and story-telling?

JAMES WAN: I loved movies growing up as a kid. It's a classic thing when you get to a certain age, you realize that movies are not just magic - it doesn't just happen, right? People actually make it. Actors get in front of the camera and act and then there are the cameraman that shoot the film and there's writers and directors and producers and so when I started realizing that there was a business behind there, I became very fascinated by it and at about the age of 11, I realized I wanted to be a film director.

But you seem too young to be doing all this big work. Or you're not that young or what?

JAMES WAN: I look like a kid. Let's just say, I made Saw, my first movie, 10 years ago now, so, I've been doing this for 10 years.

How important was it to put together this cast? They're very enthusiastic.

JAMES WAN: The cast is extremely important. I think part of the reason why the movie is as effective as it is right now is because of my actors. I'm very thankful to them because what they do is they bring quality to the movie. They elevate the movie. Vera [Farmiga] and Patrick [Wilson], Ron [Livingston] and Lili [Taylor], they elevate the movie above your standard traditional sort of horror film. When we were making this movie, we weren't making a horror film. We were just making a drama movie. That's what we were doing. We're setting up to tell a drama story about a family dealing with their personal crisis and then telling out the love story between a husband and wife and what they're dealing with and then at some point their two worlds collide. That was how I always saw it and I love that structurally from a script point. I love that you start off with two separate families that have nothing to do with each other and then slowly their world just sort of merges into one.

What I think is interesting that it's based on a real story. So this actually happened?

JAMES WAN: The Warrens are such fascinating characters. I'm actually surprised it's taken so long for someone to make a movie about them - to make a proper movie about them. They're such an amazing couple. Back when Ed was still alive, what they were doing was just so fascinating, so intriguing that it was only a matter of time, Hollywood was going to make a film about that. The writers and producers, and myself, very early on, actually, especially the writers when they spoke with Lorraine, they ask her which of your cases affected you the most? And I think she mentioned two. One was Amityville and the other one was this one.

Last night, we watched the movie, a group of journalists, and we were staying in the same hotel and nobody wanted to go to bed, we were wary of being alone. Is that the effect you want people to have?

JAMES WAN: Yes, exactly. With the terrific script writing and the terrific performances, I think all that came together, really well to make the movie that people have these sort of emotion about and like you said, without blood and guts. And that's the other thing. It's very hard to make a horror movie that doesn't rely on violence because there's very little violence in this movie. It's very difficult to make a movie too, where characters don't swear. So taking all those elements away, your hands are already tied behind your back to begin with, so it forces to be more creative and that was a challenge that I wanted.

What would you recommend for people when they're watching the film at home? Should they go to the kitchen together, don't move, or just stay together?

JAMES WAN: I think they should stay together on the couch and watch the movie until it finishes, then decide what they should do, whether they go to bed or put on a funny movie, or put on a funny sitcom to watch and kind of cleanse your mind of the scariness that is The Conjuring.

The Conjuring was a little like a Hitchcock movie. I was wondering if while growing up, his movies had an impact on you?

JAMES WAN: I love Hitchcock. I love Hitchcock's work and I love Steven Spielberg’s work. I always say no one moves a camera better then Spielberg, especially in his earlier films. I just thought they were amazing. Up to today, I still always study his movies. The camerawork, for me, is very important in a film like The Conjuring, because I think the camerawork creates a lot of the tension - as well as the production design. Knowing where to place the camera is very important to how a scare scene would play out.

How did you accomplish this quality with a smaller budget?

JAMES WAN: The budget is still bigger than what I have had to work with in the past. In the past, I've only worked with one or two million dollar movies, so this seems like a luxury. I have very smart people helping me out. Everyone really steped up to their A game. Just because it's a smaller studio film doesn't mean that it needs to feel like a small film.

How important is it for you to read reviews with “the best horror movie of the year” as some reviews are saying? Does your ego get bigger?

JAMES WAN: I don't really have an ego. That's one of the things that I'm very proud of, especially working in this town. But it just means that - I want people to like my movies. It's plain and simple. You work so hard on something and so many people believe in you and you want to do right by all those people that believe in you as a director. It's a good feeling. Most importantly for me is just the general public - I want the people out there to like the film.

Why do you think horror movies or dramatic films with suspense like this one are so appealing?

JAMES WAN: I think people love the ride. I think people love the thrill of watching a scary movie, screaming through it, laughing at the right moments and all that stuff. That's why you go to the movies, right? You go to the movies to escape. I was going to say to escape the real world but this is based on the real world, so... (laughs)

What is great is that the audience cares for the family that lives in the house.

JAMES WAN: Yes, the writers did a great job writing people that are believable and the actors just took it to a whole different level. It made it feel like a unit.

What's your biggest fear?

JAMES WAN: I have many fears. I cannot pinpoint one. Like I said, I fear the things that happen to mankind in the real world. The real world is much scarier than anything I can come up in my films.

First Look at Savage Wolverine 14.NOW

As questions circulate on how long Hugh Jackman will continue to portray the clawed X-Men, writer and artist Richard Isanove commences a new story arc with Savage Wolverine 14. NOW.

The year is 1933 at the height of Prohibition. Dust storms rage in the Midwest – and the man who will become the Wolverine makes his living carrying whiskey across the border from Canada. That is, until he finds himself the accidental caretaker of a group of orphans who’ve been targeted by the mob. Now, the first “X-Man” must choose between the anonymous life he has chosen or stepping out into the spotlight to defend the innocent once more.

“Richard is a master of noir, and he brings that sensibility to Wolverine in his earlier, more formative years,” stated Editor Jeanine Schaefer. “He’s crafted a Logan who’s been hardened by a life of violence, but still holds out hope for peace…and in the end one side of him must come out on top. Richard’s art has never looked better --  I think readers are going to get hooked on his very specific brand of storytelling!“

Savage Wolverine 14.NOW which features variant covers by Phil Noto and Chris Samnee goes on sale January 8, 2013.

Writing team secured for Star Trek 3, 2016 release date likely

Despite the fact that J.J. Abrams has vacated the director's chair in favour of Star Wars: Episode VII, Paramount Pictures is wasting little time in moving Star Trek 3 up to full impulse power, with The Hollywood Reporter revealing that screenwriters J.D. Payne and Patrick McKay will join Robert Orci in penning the script for the third instalment of the rebooted movie series.

Payne and McKay already have a working relationship with Abrams (who will remain involved in a producing capacity), having adapted the graphic novel Boilerplate for Bad Robot, while Orci has co-written both Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness with regular writing partner Alex Kurtzman.

At present, Paramount is yet to confirm a replacement for Abrams on Star Trek 3, although all signs point to Attack the Block helmer Joe Cornish taking on the task. Either way, we should expect an official announcement on a director soon with Paramount and co-financiers Skydance looking to mark the sci-fi franchise's 50th anniversary with a 2016 release date.

Doctor Octopus name-dropped in latest Daily Bugle viral article for The Amazing Spider-Man 2

If you've seen the trailer for The Amazing Spider-Man 2, then you'll have no doubt noticed a certain set of mechanical arms in the vault at OsCorp, hinting that Doctor Octopus is set to make his debut in Sony's rebooted Spidey universe, presumably in 2016's The Amazing Spider-Man 3. Well, the latest article from the Daily Planet viral site on Tumblr (yes, the one that was ever so "subtly" plugged in the trailer) has given us our first mention of Doc Ock himelf, or rather his pre-supervillain persona Dr. Otto Octavius...

OsCorp: Behind the Scenes, by Joy Mercado

Some people have visions of the future. Me?

I went and saw it with my own eyes.

Behind the ridiculously fortified superdoors of OsCorp Industries headquarters the future waits patiently for the rest of us to arrive. Only a privileged few reside there — guardians of the secrets that only time (and intrepid journalists!) will reveal.

Under pressure to quiet growing Wall Street rumors of plans gone awry, OsCorp spokesman Donald Menken gave me a glimpse into that future.

I was only given limited access to this room, and legally I can’t discuss what I saw in detail. I can barely describe what I saw now. Had I stepped just one foot deeper, it would have been too overwhelming for me to handle.

Prototypes from the United States Military? CHECK. Alternative energy experiments? CHECK. Stuff I don’t understand enough to even describe it correctly? SUPERCHECK.

It’s like what my childhood closet would have looked like if all toys were free and unlimited — but OsCorp’s toys can save the world…or obliterate it.

So, if the future is already in the warehouse, how do they keep advancing? When money is no object, it means the best facilities filled with the brightest minds in science.

The scientific rumor mill (there is such a thing — I checked) has floated every leading name as a possible contributor. But none is more intriguing than world-renowned nuclear researcher Otto Octavius. 

When asked about that rumor, Mr. Menken replied, “I can’t confirm or deny any rumors you read on the web. We talk to a number of different scientists every day about our special projects.”

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is set for release on April 18th 2014 in the UK and May 2nd 2014 in North America with a cast that includes Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Sally Field, Jamie Foxx, Dane DeHaan, Paul Giamatti, Chris Cooper, Felicity Jones, Colm Feore, B.J. Novak, Chris Zylka, Embeth Davidtz and Campbell Scott.

Disney reaches deal with Paramount for Indiana Jones rights, clears the way for future movies

When Walt Disney Pictures purchased Lucasfilm last year, it not only acquired ownership of the Star Wars saga, but also Lucasfilm's other big franchise Indiana Jones, although the distribution rights to the four movies remained with Paramount Pictures.

Well, it's now been announced by Disney and Paramount that a marketing and distribution deal has been reached between the two parties for the Indiana Jones series, which clears the way for the House of Mouse to produce and distribute future movies for Harrison Ford's archeologist and adventurer.

At present, there's no word whether Disney plans to give the green light to the rumoured Indiana Jones 5, which would likely reunite Ford with director Steven Spielberg and producer George Lucas, but seeing as the studio has went to the trouble and expense of acquiring the necessary rights, you can bet it's coming. Unless they decide to go the reboot route of course...

Special Features - The Wonder Woman Mandate: Do we really need a solo Wonder Woman movie?‏

Anghus Houvouras asks whether we really need a solo Wonder Woman movie...

Do we need a Wonder Woman movie?

Short Answer: No.

There, I just saved you ten minutes of reading.  For the long answer, please continue.

We don't need a Wonder Woman solo movie.  After hearing about the character being included in Zack Snyder's Batman vs. Superman, I audibly groaned.  Not only because I was hoping DC and Warner Bros. would avoid the reverse engineered Avengers strategy they had been mulling, but because it felt like we're getting the character pushed into pre-existing properties like Batman vs. Superman because of a misguided sense of fairness.  Because comic book movies (and, lets face it comic books in general) have a very limited scope when it comes to female characters and there are those who think its time to end this super hero sausage party.

The truth is, most people don't want a Wonder Woman movie.  They're not interested in the character.  But few people are willing to even talk about the subject because saying 'Wonder Woman wouldn't make an interesting movie' is somehow akin to saying "I don't respect women".  Even bringing the subject up will get you leveled by a very loud minority who will quickly employ bullying techniques to shout you down.  No one wants to have this discussion because you can't merely talk about Wonder Woman as a character or a creative property.  People don't want to discuss the 'wonder'.  They only want to discuss the 'woman'.

This topic is sensitive, so I expect some raw nerves and clenched teeth.  Bear with me here.  The road gets a little twisted.  I'm not saying there isn't room for Wonder Woman and other female character in the world of comic book adaptations.  There are those who will read the headline and immediately form a conclusion: that my disinterest in a Wonder Woman movie and the character in general when isolated from her superhero peers is somehow sexist and I'm just another knuckle dragging moron who is disinterested in female heroes.  For those of you willing to have a cerebral discussion on the topic, feel free to continue.  For those of you who want to tell me I suck, feel free to skip to the comments section below.

And we begin...

Most male superheroes are musclebound men who embody the best of the gender.  They are strong, smart, and most of the ones who make their way into cinemas live by a stringent moral code.  They are good, decent men who try to make the world a better place.  Most are dressed in skin tight outfits covering 90% of their body.  The only skin you'll find on Batman are the openings in his cowl.  The only skin you see on Superman is his head and his hands.

Most female superheroes are fetishized sexual fantasies as envisioned by men.  They are strong and smart.  Very few have made their way into cinemas (more on that later).  Most are dressed provocatively with a lot of exposed skin.  Even the ones dressed in full body suits (Black Widow, Catwoman) have the plunging necklines.  Superhero comic book readers are predominantly men, and the women portrayed in them are more often than not sexualized for the target audience.  While Wonder Woman is at times written with more complexity than a masturbatory fantasy, the core of the character and the iconic elements she is known for all revolve around the sexualized elements.

The red, white, and blue swimsuit.  The lasso.  The boots.  There's a reason why Wonder Woman costumes are so popular at Halloween, and it's not because people are so enamored with the character.

As a comic book character, Wonder Woman has never been a high seller.  Currently she languishes around the bottom quarter of the top 100 comics.  She does fare well in team up books, like the recent Superman/Wonder Woman title and her ongoing connection to the Justice League.  It's why her inclusion in Batman vs. Superman feels like the best potential home for the character, who works best in a group dynamic.  My issues with Wonder Woman appearing in Batman vs. Superman are more about the movie being packed with too many characters and too many plots.  The 'orgy of excess' I spoke of in an earlier column.

Honestly, if Wonder Woman as a character is ever going to work cinematically, Batman vs. Superman is the best vehicle to test the waters. But that doesn't mean we need a Wonder Woman solo movie.  Why can't the character exist within the DC cinematic universe within the framework of films like Batman vs. Superman or  the eventual Justice League movie?  Why is there so much volume from a very small fan base for a Wonder Woman movie?

Because in their minds, it's an issue of fairness.  A male dominated super-hero world has relegated women to the sidelines with supporting roles.  I won't pretend to understand the perspective of the disenfranchised female fans who want to see a female superhero brought to the big screen with the same care as other icons.  However, I say with great confidence that I don't think a Wonder Woman movie would usher in a new era of female super hero movies.

It'd be nice to have a female super-hero one day.  But why does it have to be Wonder Woman?  Simply because she's the most iconic female superhero, rather than the best one to bring to the big screen.  Just because something is iconic doesn't mean it will translate to the big screen.  Wonder Woman's heavy connections Mythology will immediately draw Thor comparisons.  Warner Bros. has been doing an excellent job with their properties lately.  From Nolan's Dark Knight Trilogy, to the Man of Steel (a movie I rather liked), to small screen offerings like Arrow.  Why put effort and finances into something derivative and uninspired simply because the character has a high recognition factor?

Yes, people recognize Wonder Woman because the character is corny.  Look at the character's pop culture profile.  The character is referenced in shows like The Big Bang Theory when they need to put Kaley Cuoco in a revealing outfit.  Constant references to her magic lasso, tying men up and forcing them to tell the truth, and sight gags using her invisible plane in shows like Robot Chicken.  Wonder Woman is a character with a real image problem: no one takes her seriously.  Wonder Woman has become synonymous with silliness and sexuality.  What has prevented her from coming to the big screen has nothing to do with finding the right take on the character, it's that the character simply isn't original enough or taken seriously enough to warrant a $200 million dollar investment.

Wonder Woman is also lacking any recognition factor outside the primary character.  There are no iconic villains or ancillary characters screaming for a cinematic treatment.  No Jokers or Lex Luthors to get people excited.

Let's face it: It would take a masterful Wonder Woman movie to get people to move past the magic lasso, the invisible jet, the bondage jokes.  It's not impossible mind you, but I think those who cling to the idea of a Wonder Woman movie are doing so out of a belief that bringing her to the big screen is some kind of benchmark.  Unfortunately, just getting the movie made isn't any kind of achievement.  And because of all the hyperbole and indignation, a Wonder Woman movie has already become more than a movie.  It's a movement.  A mandate.  A point of contention.  It becomes an ideological argument.  The movie is already saddled with baggage and it doesn't even exist.

Let's get a female super-hero movie into production, but lets base it on something more than iconography.  If people are pinning all their hopes on Wonder Woman leading a new charge of female super-hero movies because of her recognition factor, the whole enterprise might be finished before it even starts.

Including Wonder Woman in Batman vs. Superman was something that felt forced when I first read about it, but more and more it feels like the most organic place to house the character.  Perhaps the best way to resolve the Wonder Woman mandate is by putting her in a movie alongside heroes like Batman and Superman.  Showing a powerful female hero that can stand shoulder to shoulder with the most powerful heroes on Earth. 

Finding a right place for the character is an idea I can get behind. Mandating an entire movie is another story entirely.

Anghus Houvouras is a North Carolina based writer and filmmaker. His latest work, the novel My Career Suicide Note, is available from Amazon.

Terminator heading back to TV for "companion series" to movie reboot

Having acquired the rights to Terminator for a hefty $20 million, producers Megan Ellison and David Ellison are wasting little time in capitalising on their investment. Not only is a new movie trilogy in the works, with the first instalment set for release in 2015 under director Alan Taylor (Game of Thrones), but it's now been announced that the sci-fi franchise is heading back to the small screen for a "companion piece" to the new movie series.

According to The Hollywood Reporter, Thor and X-Men: First Class writers Zack Stentz and Ashley Miller are set to write and produce the new series, which "will follow a critical moment from the first Terminator film (1984), and where the film's story goes one way, the upcoming series will take the same moment in a completely different direction. As the rebooted film trilogy and the new TV series progress, the two narratives will intersect with each other in surprising and dramatic ways."

As for the upcoming feature film, the article goes on to confirm that Arnold Schwarzenegger will reprise his signature role for what is described as "a time-spanning story that sees him tasked with protecting Sarah Connor as she grows up." As reported earlier this week, Emilia Clarke (Game of Thrones) and Brie Larsen (Short Term 12) are said to be front-runners for the role of Sarah Connor in the film, which is currently set to arrive on July 1st 2015.

Henry Cavill as the Man of Steel in Superman: Flyby screen test

When Zack Snyder cast Henry Cavill as the lead in Man of Steel, it wasn't the British actor's first brush with Superman. Back in 2004, Cavill was cast as the iconic superhero in Superman: Flyby, a planned reboot from director McG (Charlie's Angels) and screenwriter J.J. Abrams (Star Trek Into Darkness), which ultimately fell apart when Bryan Singer came on board and cast Brandon Routh in 2006's Superman Returns. And, thanks to ThinkMcFlyThink, we have a glimpse of Cavill in the red-and-blue from his 2004 screen test for Flyby...

Superman: Flyby was intended as an origin tale that would have radically altered the traditional Superman story, with Kal-El being sent to Earth as an infant during a Civil War on Krypton and eventually coming to battle his evil cousin Ty-Zor and his three Kryptonian cronies, but only after being killed in action and subsequently resurrected. Other actors said to have been considered for the role at the time included Jude Law (Sherlock Holmes), Paul Walker (Fast & Furious), Ashton Kutcher (That '70s Show), David Boreanaz (Angel), James Marsden (X-Men), Victor Webster (Charmed), Jason Behr (Roswell), Jared Padalecki (Supernatural), Michael Cassidy (Men at Work) and Josh Hartnett (30 Days of Night), with the latter reportedly turning down a $100 million three-picture deal.

Hugh Jackman unsure about Wolverine return

Next year Hugh Jackman will make his seventh appearance as the Wolverine in director Bryan Singer's X-Men: Days of Future Past, while yesterday's news about X-Men: Apocalypse coming in 2016 means there are three further potential outings for Logan on the horizon, including the X-Force movie from Jeff Wadlow and James Mangold's sequel to The Wolverine. However, despite the fact that Jackman is collaborating with Mangold on development of Wolverine's third solo outing, the actor has revealed that he's undecided over reprising the role of the fan favourite mutant and may be ready to hang up the claws.

"I don’t know whether or not I will do this next movie," Jackman tells Vanity Fair. "I am really proud of this movie and I am excited to develop something with Jim Mangold from the beginning because that is a great ride. That’s exciting, to see what we come up with but I have a very high expectation of what it would need to be [for me to star in it] and if it doesn’t reach those, I won’t be doing it. Jim Mangold and I were literally on the phone last night talking about ideas but there is no script and no writer yet so it’s a way off."

Obviously Jackman won't be able to continue as Wolverine forever, and should he decide it's time to call it a day, Fox will certainly have a task on its hands to find a suitable replacement in the role - perhaps even more so than Marvel Studios when Robert Downey Jr. calls time on Tony Stark. So, if Days of Future Past is his last outing, who would you like to see taking over? Let us know in the comments below....